Nadine Dorries: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the time limit for legal termination of pregnancy from 24 to 21 weeks; to introduce a cooling off period after the first point of contact with a medical practitioner about a termination; to require the provision of counselling about the medical risk of, and about matters relating to, termination and carrying a pregnancy to term as a condition of informed consent to termination; to enable the time period from the end of the cooling off period to the date of termination to be reduced; and for connected purposes.
	The aim and objective of the Bill are to reduce the number of abortions that take place each year in Britain. That figure has reached 180,000, or 600 a day, and rising. There is now far greater knowledge and awareness, and much less stigma, surrounding the issues of pregnancy. The morning after pill can now be bought over the counter and there are pregnancy home-testing kits that can be used in the very early stages of pregnancy. The aim of my Bill is to reduce the number of abortions performed, and I wish to concentrate on social abortions that take place between the 21st and 24th weeks of pregnancy.
	In 1990, when the House set the abortion limit at 24 weeks, viability—the date at which a foetus could survive outside the womb—was the principal consideration. Science has moved on, and so should the debate. Advanced medical scanners are now used by people such as Professor Campbell, one of the UK's most highly respected neonatologists, and I am grateful to him for his help and insight. The images produced by ground-breaking foetal monitoring techniques show the layperson how a foetus looks and behaves in the mother's womb. The images are moving, and there is no doubt that they have informed public opinion. However, they simply reaffirm information that the medical profession has known about for some years, which is why the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists states that for late abortions foeticide must take place first.
	To put it simply, the professionals insist that a foetus must be put to death in the womb before it is aborted. The majority of abortions over 20 weeks take place using foeticide. Guidelines were drawn up recently because doctors simply do not want to perform abortions on babies they think may have a chance of survival or who may be aborted alive. In accordance with Royal College guidelines, a late abortion takes place over two days. On day one, a lethal injection is inserted into the foetal heart—I will spare hon. Members the details of the way in which that procedure is executed. When the doctor is convinced that the foetal heart has completely stopped, labour is induced and the foetus is delivered using forceps on day two.
	Many doctors think that a foetus is sentient—that is to say, conscious—from 18 weeks. Many of us have seen scanned pictures in the newspapers showing the smiles, the thumb-sucking and the kicking, and it is hard to disagree. Doctor John Peebles, a leading foetal development consultant from University College hospital said only last week:
	"For social terminations we have to say that 24 weeks is not justifiable because you have to induce labour, but first go through the process of foeticide. Therefore doctors in my position would support a lowering to 21 weeks."
	Doctors do not like foeticide and they do not like late abortions. They have to perform 3,000 abortions a year on babies of over 20 weeks' gestation for social reasons. There is evidence that what we are debating from 20 weeks could be a sentient being.
	Some doctors argue that babies are sentient from 18 weeks—at that point, the foetus is no longer a collection of cells and embryonic fluid. If we accept that, and I believe that the evidence is compelling, we are morally obliged to reconsider the legality of late abortions. Some Members may question the science of viability and claim that perhaps only a few babies would survive. Some Members may take issue with the point of sentience, waiting for yet more concrete scientific proof. There may even be Members who think that foeticide is an acceptable practice. It is a prescribed practice by the Royal College, but anyone who supports the upper limit of 24 weeks endorses foeticide.
	If we put the three together—viability, sentience and foeticide—the evidence is overwhelming and compelling. The time has now come to reduce the limit to 21 weeks. It is 2006—not 1967 and not 1990. Time and medical technology have moved on, and so has the mood of the nation. Polling this year showed that the overwhelming majority of British people support moves to end late abortion for social reasons. We now know beyond doubt—thanks to the comprehensive, respected Ferguson study undertaken over 25 years—that women who have abortions subsequently have twice as many mental health problems and three times the risk of major depressive illness as women who have not had an abortion or who have carried a pregnancy to term.
	Last Friday,  The Times published a letter from 12 leading UK professors, consultant psychiatrists, obstetricians and doctors calling for a revision of the Royal College guidelines, stating that we now have a duty to inform women of the risks associated with having an abortion. My Bill calls for a 10-day cooling-off period that would give the mother breathing space, allowing her time to think, to be counselled and advised of the risks of abortion and to be guided through the options, which should include the possibility of carrying the pregnancy to term. I call that a woman's right to know and to choose, because without information, what choices does a woman have? A period of informed consent is about empowerment—it is about whether or not the decision to abort is fully thought through. It is about making an informed decision.
	Many pro-choice campaigners describe abortion as a relief to most women. I am sure that it is a relief from the panic-ridden, helpless situation in which many women find themselves, but as well as relief they experience an overwhelming sense of grief and trauma. Whereas relief is a temporary emotion, the grief and loss may last for many years. In fact, they may not even set in for many years.
	With the introduction of a cooling-off period, whenever a woman says to herself "If only", she would in future be able to reassure herself that she was helped, that she had thought long and hard and that she was given all the knowledge and advice that she needed. She will take comfort from the fact that a decision was not rushed or panicked, but well thought through. That does not happen now. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service website advertises that from the point of seeing a doctor, abortion will be performed in five days. That is abortion on demand.
	In the countries where informed consent has been introduced, the number of requested abortions has dropped dramatically. With a period of informed consent in this country, together with a reduction in the number of late abortions, the Bill will achieve its aims and objectives—to reduce the number of abortions performed each day and to assist women in making calm and well-thought-through decisions.
	The third part of my Bill is designed to ensure that after the 10-day cooling-off period, when the woman decides to proceed with the termination, those 10 days are not added to the waiting period. Time has moved on, science has moved on, and so has public opinion. Respected medical opinion—the country's leading neonatologists and foetal development consultants—thinks that it is time to reduce to 21 weeks. Even the public agreed in a recent study that late abortion was cruel and believe overwhelmingly—85 per cent.—that it should be abolished. I believe that it is time for Members to respond. After all, we passed the Act a long time ago.
	I do not have all the answers. As with any Bill, the detail would need debate and amendments, and there are hon. Members with far greater wisdom and knowledge than me who would like to contribute. The Bill at least brings the debate into the open. It is wrong that it has been suppressed for 16 years. As I have said, it is not about a woman's right to choose, but a woman's right to know.

Adam Price: I would welcome the opportunity to go to Iraq. I have been trying to go. I was told by the former Foreign Secretary that it was not safe for a Member of Parliament to go to Iraq. That is a sad indictment of the state of affairs on the ground. Those who will support the motion include Members who opposed the war and those who supported it.

Khalid Mahmood: Those lives have been taken as a result of action by the insurgents. Our troops are there to make sure that action does not take place. Every day, a huge number of people in Iraq lose their lives, and what Opposition Members have done today is encourage that process. What we need to do—[Hon. Members: "Withdraw!"]

William Hague: No. Given the practical confines of House of Commons procedures, it is logical for an Opposition to try to produce the effects that they want. The Government have failed to give any assurance about holding an inquiry, in the next Session of Parliament or at any time. I certainly recommend that my hon. Friends vote for the motion, as the practical effect of ensuring that it is carried, or nearly carried, is that the Government would have to think about coming forward with their own proposals for an inquiry, of the right kind and at the right time. That is the right way for Opposition Members to vote.
	There are members of various parties who have given strong support to the Government but who are adamantly of the same opinion. In the interests of time, I shall refer only to the former Foreign Secretary Lord Owen— [ Interruption. ] Labour Members should not tut-tut, as he was a Labour Foreign Secretary. At the end of June, he said:
	"There is now an overriding case to establish an inquiry similar to the Dardanelles Commission"—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2006; Vol. 683, c. 1350.]
	He went on to say that
	"there is no more important issue now for restoring morale in the services than for the Parliament of this country to assert its rights over the Executive and establish that inquiry, even though it is likely to be fought tooth and nail by the Prime Minister."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2006; Vol. 683, c. 1353.]

William Hague: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As I have said, our predecessors in this House debated the Dardanelles. They also debated the Morris report in 1918, to the great embarrassment of Lloyd George, and the 1940 Norway campaign. They were not scared that debating such matters might have given heart to the Germans, in either the first or the second world war. We will not be worthy of being their successors unless we are unafraid to debate things in this House as well.
	I am less hard on the Government than Lord Owen or the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price). We on the Opposition Front Bench do not call for this inquiry to be established immediately. We would be happy for the Government to give thought as to when it should begin its work, but we also believe— given that operations have been going on for more than three years and are expected to diminish considerably in future months, and that we live in a country where we are meant to enjoy the great democratic strength of discussing our successes and failures—that to postpone the establishment of such an inquiry beyond the end of another Session of Parliament would be beyond the limits of what is reasonable.
	All we want the Government to say is that, in recognition of the force of the arguments for an inquiry in due course, the relevant Committee, based on the Franks model, will be established within the next year. We would consider such a response to be a proper one. If the Government gave it, we would abstain from voting on the motion tonight. However, if they are unwilling to say that, even though there are two significant points of differences between many of us and the proposers of the motion, we believe that the House of Commons should send Ministers a message that they must come up with their own proposals. In the absence of those proposals today, all who believe in the proper scrutiny of the Executive should cast their votes accordingly.

David Blunkett: Those who from the beginning were against the action that we took remain opposed to it. Those who wish that they had been against it, and who have not yet declared, are likely to vote with the Opposition tonight. The very few who have changed their minds are reluctant to say so. However, the majority of Members, not only on the Labour Benches but in the House as a whole, have not changed their minds about the validity of the action taken, on which we voted on 18 March 2003. There are also those who have not changed their minds, but who cannot miss an opportunity to have a go at this Government, at our Prime Minister and at the actions that we have taken, regardless of the consequences in terms of demoralisation and the difficulty that doing so causes for our troops in Iraq and for the Iraqi people.
	By his own admission, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the shadow Foreign Secretary, does not agree with the motion that he is asking Members of his party to vote for. He clearly said that he did not agree with the structure, the membership, the terms of reference or the likely outcome of an inquiry on the terms laid down in the motion. That is what the right hon. Gentleman said. He then went on to say that he did not agree with the timing of the motion and that there should not be an inquiry now.
	The right hon. Gentleman made a powerful case for further debate. The "Hear, hears" that were uttered across the Chamber were in recognition of the fact that there is a case for a debate. It has been made over and over again this afternoon, in terms of what happened in 1918, or in May 1940 on the abortive Norwegian campaign. However, nobody at those times suggested that there should be an open public inquiry and that we in this House, our armed services and our security services should be diverted into answering to it in the middle of a conflict. A debate was agreed to, by all means, but not an inquiry. There is a substantial difference between the Opposition advocating this afternoon that their Members should go through the Lobby in support of a motion that they do not agree with in respect of its terms of reference, structure or timing, but on the other hand are advocating a debate.
	On the timing issue, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that he did not agree that there should be an inquiry now, but that he thought that there might be one in the next Session of Parliament—in other words, in the next year. He was presuming that there would be substantial change in Iraq, and we all hope that there will be. But what message would be taken by the opposition in Iraq—by the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq—from the suggestion that it might be inappropriate to have an inquiry now, but that it might be appropriate to do so in the next 12 months presuming that, if the right hon. Gentleman gets his way and the House agrees tonight that this is likely, not only will things have improved, but our troops will have withdrawn within those 12 months? We cannot, in all honesty, make that presumption.

David Blunkett: No, I will not give way because we have an eight-minute rule.
	In all conflicts, what happens in them determines how people see the outcome. In Kosovo we had—thank God—an outcome that saved tens of thousands of people from genocide. The illegality of the action taken fades into history. I hope —[Interruption.] Well, that is a simple point about those who have been, and remain, against our action in Iraq, but who have somehow never been against our action in Kosovo. Our action in Kosovo saved lives, and our action in Iraq is now determining whether there is a structure that can hold and a security system that can take care of the future functioning of the state of Iraq.
	We all know that had other action been taken to retain the civil service, the local government, the administration and the middle and lower echelons of the armed services in Iraq, our debate today might have been unnecessary because there would have been a different outcome. We know what has been revealed over the past three and a half years, and many of the questions that have been asked not just this afternoon but over that period have already been answered. We know that there are lessons to be learned, but we also know the consequences of a vote tonight that casts any doubt whatsoever on the UK's determination to stand by the people of Iraq, to stand by the democratically elected Government and to stand by our armed services, who are doing their job in Iraq. There are consequences to the votes that we cast, and when the main Opposition do so, knowing that they disagree with the motion but determined to give the Government a bloody nose, they can only be described as hypocrites.

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman is right. We are seeing that there is a lot of pent-up demand for that debate.
	Earlier this year, the leader of our party, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), set out the key stages of a possible strategy for Iraq that would allow the phased withdrawal of all coalition troops. He talked especially about the need to internationalise and, specifically, to involve the neighbouring states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iran. There would be immense difficulties with that, not least because of the role of some of those countries in Iraq at present, their links with Hamas and Hezbollah, and fears about Iran's moves towards a nuclear capability. However, we must now contemplate that as part of the broader issue of regional stability. Those countries have a direct stake as neighbours. Iraq is one of the most intricate pieces of the jigsaw in their neighbourhood, and the middle east peace process is inextricably linked to what goes on in Iraq. Our Prime Minister says that he wants to stake his reputation on making progress with the middle east peace process. How on earth will that be possible while we are mired in Iraq and unwilling to deal with some of the key regional players?
	The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram), made a welcome statement in Westminster Hall last week:
	"those people who are part of the problem must be part of the solution, otherwise they remain part of the problem ... We must reach out and find a way to deal with the problem."—[ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 25 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 435-36WH.]
	That is just one of the issues to be tackled. Other hon. Members have set out many more. We should be grateful of the Minister's recognition of at least that point, but that one concession does not amount to a strategy, and we need one fast.
	The mid-term elections in the United States next week will set the scene for the report of the Iraq study group, which is expected between then and the end of the year. Are we just to accept the position passively, or will there be a proper debate here as well? The shadow Foreign Secretary has already indicated that there will be the traditional international affairs debate following the Queen's Speech in a couple of weeks. That debate will offer some scope for hearing more from the Government, but given that so many other issues are pressing at the moment—the middle east, Darfur, North Korea, Iran and Afghanistan—it will surely not be enough. The Government should thus either set aside an extra day for debate after the Queen's Speech, or provide time for a separate debate on a substantive motion in the very near future.
	General Dannatt put it in bald terms. He said that we should
	"get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems".
	He also said:
	"We've been there 3 and a half years and we don't want to be there another 2, 3, 4, 5 years ... We've got to think about this in terms of a reasonable length of time ... and I hope that will be sometime soon."
	His comments acknowledge that whatever our substantial obligations to the Iraqi people to sort out the mess that we helped to create in their country, ultimately our responsibilities are to our armed forces, who put their lives on the line. We need to be able to show that in doing so they are following a strategy that is clear and deliverable. We need to take account of what is happening in the USA and prepare an appropriate British strategy. That strategy has to recognise the worsening realities in Iraq; it has to appreciate the situation of our armed forces as described by General Dannatt and supported by many ex-Chiefs of the Defence Staff; and it has to amount to a plan for a phased withdrawal of British troops in months, not years.

Malcolm Rifkind: The best debates in this House are when hon. Members on both sides find themselves in almost total agreement, and I pay tribute to what the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) has just said.
	It is a depressing illustration of the Government's indifference to this House that the Foreign Secretary, in the first debate of more than two hours on the Floor of the House specifically on Iraq, left the Chamber shortly after her own speech and will presumably not return until the winding-up speeches. The Foreign Secretary and the Government have been reluctant to answer to this House for far too long.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who has raised this valuable debate. However, I must say that I am slightly nervous in one respect, because the Government may seek to use the debate to avoid pressure which they otherwise deserve. It is extraordinary that on an issue such as going to war—the war has led to the disastrous consequences referred to by many hon. Members—it has been three years since the last Government-initiated debate, which took place before the war had even begun. Since then, not only have several thousand coalition servicemen lost their lives and, probably, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis been slaughtered, but we have seen the disintegration of that country, which is unlikely to be reversed. We have also seen sectarianism that is the opposite of what both this Government and the United States Government intended. So far, the only serious beneficiary of the war is the Iranian Government, who are now clearly the power in the region. That extraordinary consequence of Bush-Blair policy was far from what they intended.
	Today is not the day to go into the merits and details of the policy, but if we live in a parliamentary democracy in which the Government are accountable to Parliament for the way in which they conduct their affairs, then not having a debate in Government time for three years on a matter as serious as going to war is an extraordinary disgrace of which the Government ought to be ashamed. In reply to my earlier question, the Foreign Secretary said, "We have had debates on foreign policy. We have had debates on defence. No doubt we will have a day on this subject as part of the Queen's Speech debate." That is hopeless and unacceptable. The Government's policy has failed so far, and they are in denial. If they want to recover support in this House and in the country, they must have the guts to come to the Dispatch Box to explain and defend their policy, not once every three years but on a regular basis, to allow their claims to be tested.
	Today's motion is justified because the troops in Iraq and the nation as a whole are not impressed by the argument that this Parliament, which they elected to represent their interests, cannot be trusted to debate these matters without destroying the morale of our forces in Iraq. That argument is absurd, and the Government should be ashamed of it—indeed, I doubt whether they believe it—and it should not be repeated.

Jim Sheridan: Those of us who know the hon. Gentleman from his work in Scotland know that he is a straight-talking guy, so before Members from both sides of the House go into the Lobby, can he tell us, unequivocally, whether he has said today that the motion is about the impeachment of the prime Minister? Can he answer that question?

Alex Salmond: The motion began as an impeachment motion. [Hon. Members: "Answer!"] We tabled the motion that appears on the Order Paper to secure maximum unity across the House. It is concerned with parliamentary responsibility and accountability. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read it and follow his conscience by joining us in the Lobby.
	Many of us remember the debate on Iraq in which the Prime Minister said that it was "palpably absurd" not to believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He told us that he had never made the argument for regime change when defending the decision to invade Iraq. He has made that argument many times since the invasion, because clearly he can no longer make the argument about weapons of mass destruction. Those are not matters of opinion, but of fact—we know that there were not any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that the American justification that al-Qaeda was involved was tenuous at best. There was no connection with 9/11 to justify the invasion and the casualty toll as a result of the action is a matter of fact: 120 British soldiers and 2,821 American soldiers are dead. Tens of thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of Iraqi civilians are dead. Those are the consequences of the decision by the House.
	Suez was raised a number of times in our debate, but casualties there did not approach the total that I have just given the House. Certainly, lives were lost, but not to the extent that they have been lost in Iraq—16 British soldiers were lost at Suez, every one a tragedy; 1,650 Egyptians were killed, every one a tragedy. Compared with the consequences that have befallen us in Iraq, however, Suez is as nothing. Yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a campaign to save the world from climate change. They have spent $5 billion in Iraq and the Americans have spent $200 billion. What if those resources had been devoted to saving the planet, rather than starting an illegal war?
	Finally, our genuinely cross-party motion provides a chance to achieve parliamentary accountability. It is an opportunity for the House of Commons to live up to our constituents' expectations. It has been said that our soldiers would be discouraged if the motion were agreed, but they would be discouraged only if they thought that the House had forgotten them and was frightened to debate the implications of Iraq. They would be discouraged if they thought that Members were not prepared to table motions or consider how we can get out of the morass into which we have been led. It is the Government who refuse to debate or introduce policies, but it is the House of Commons, by voting in the Division Lobbies tonight, that can finally hold them to account.

Douglas Alexander: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that, as I said earlier, project costs were discussed when the Bill was deposited, and value engineering work has been taken forward? Following the conclusion of the Lyons review at the turn of this year, there will be further discussions on the alternative funding mechanism, which is the appropriate and sensible way to take forward the project's funding.

Alan Meale: As I said, the Committee has already accepted the Secretary of State's offer on that. The figures given to the Committee range from £10 billion to £16 billion, and we are not sure what the actual cost would be. The Committee agrees that the issue of Woolwich needs to be considered, and we are grateful to the Secretary of State for his offer to beef up the economic case and bring it back to the Committee so that we can consider it and give our opinion.
	The other factor that made the case even more compelling was the probability of huge growth in the Woolwich area. The Government's own figures show that by 2031 there will be more than 100,000 people living within a 20-mile journey of where the station would be. That is phenomenal growth. Having spoken to the London borough of Greenwich, we know that it has given planning permission for up to 15,000 properties to be built in the next five years. That growth can be met only if a Crossrail station is built there. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, 180 buses an hour already serve the centre of Woolwich. If the transport infrastructure network is to be integrated and co-ordinated, Crossrail is vital.
	The Committee has met for months. We have had scores of sittings. We have debated the matter time and again. We have visited the sites in question. We have all worked hard, and we represent various political persuasions in the House. Every vote that we have had on the Bill has been unanimous. That is extremely rare. I repeat that we are grateful to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary for the work that they have put in and the new opportunity that has been offered. We will work diligently until we can complete the task and present a full Bill to the House.

Eric Pickles: Indeed. I shall deal briefly with one or two matters, starting with the report by Sir Michael Lyons. Since the Second Reading debate, we have been told that his report on the future of local government was awaited and would be taken into consideration in deciding the future of Crossrail.
	Not long after that undertaking was given, a number of us had an opportunity to have a discussion with Sir Michael in a Committee upstairs. I asked him a gentle question, which was meant as an ice-breaker. It was not meant to elicit any particular information. I asked how he was going about forming his views on Crossrail. He replied that that was an interesting question. He said that he was bemused by the references to Crossrail, which he had read about in a newspaper, and that he had not been approached by the Government or given any terms of reference with regard to Crossrail and did not intend to deal with it.
	That was an extraordinary response, given that we were speaking about the single most important infrastructure project that any of us are likely to see in our career in Parliament, and it has been left to a chap who does not intend to say much about it. Because of the way in which local government finance operates and because Sir Michael Lyons is a reasonable and obliging man, I suspect that in the end he may have something to say about major infrastructure projects, but even if he does, nothing will quite fit the enormity of Crossrail. There may well be schemes concerning roads, old person's homes or other infrastructure questions, but the question of how they are financed is nothing by comparison with the billions of pounds that must be raised. We need an explanation of why we are waiting. Sir Michael Lyons, eminent though he is, will not add an awful lot to what we know must come.
	Ultimately, the issue concerns who pays. How big will the Treasury contribution be? Will a substantial sum of money from the public purse be put aside in the next financial round? And what contribution will come from the London taxpayer and, in particular, from the London business rate? Ministers have said that it is only reasonable that those who will benefit from Crossrail should contribute, but if the business rate is to remain capped and linked to inflation, it will not pay for Crossrail. If one third or one half of the funds are needed, there will be savage increases in local taxation in London close to the time when Londoners will be shelling out for the Olympics.

Andrew Rosindell: I accept everything that the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of the regeneration that Crossrail will bring, but does he agree that it is important to consider the impact on people's lives of issues such as the places where the tracks, depot and other facilities are to be sited? Crossrail certainly would have had a huge impact on my constituency, and it still will, in certain parts. Is it not vital that such issues are fully considered throughout our deliberations on the Bill?

Bob Russell: Any transport scheme that will encourage greater public use should, in principle, be supported, but I have reservations and concerns; I seek clarification and—I hope—reassurance, tonight or subsequently, from the Select Committee.
	The second motion refers to
	"an additional ticket hall and enhancement of the existing ticket hall at Liverpool Street Station".
	Those of us who use the line into Liverpool Street from East Anglia and Essex know that it is already exceptionally busy. That wording suggests that the sponsors anticipate a massive increase in passenger usage of that station.
	Track time is already scarce for journeys into Liverpool Street. I am concerned that an increase in inner London rail traffic into the station may be achieved by using the fast line service that comes from Norwich through East Anglia, into Suffolk and North Essex, and then through Colchester, Chelmsford and Shenfield. The crowding on the existing track into Liverpool Street is already like putting a quart into a pint pot. If another pint is added, it may be at the expense of the fast line service from East Anglia.
	Members who represent constituencies across the east of England may not yet have cottoned on to the problem. If the additional inner London rail traffic is put on the current fast line, it can only be to the detriment of the fast train services. I raise my concerns on behalf of my constituents and I hope that they will be considered carefully by other hon. Members. I hope that the Minister, when he winds up, will explain how an already exceptionally busy and congested London terminus can take the additional trains that Crossrail will produce, without detrimental effect on the fast service from the east.

Peter Soulsby: I suspect that before we get to the end of our sentence, we will have served at least 90 days. It has also been suggested that we are enduring cruel and unusual punishment and that Red Cross parcels ought to be sent to us along the Committee corridor, but as yet they have not arrived.
	Although we might question how we came to be there, we have indeed served on that Committee diligently and with good humour. We have been ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), who has contributed to this evening's debate, and informally but quite firmly whipped by the hon. Member for Northampton, South, who has acted as an unofficial Whip and ensured that we continued to maintain a quorum throughout those long periods of incarceration.
	We have looked at issues ranging from significant strategic ones such as the need, as was referred to earlier, for an additional ticket hall at Liverpool Street station, through to comparatively mundane ones that are nevertheless particularly important to those affected by them, such as whether a couple of metres ought to be sacrificed from the back of somebody's garden in order to accommodate the additional space needed for a Crossrail line. We have looked at those issues seriously and in a measured way, and Members representing all the parties have used their judgment and understanding of the evidence put in front of them.
	Some of the issues that the Committee has considered have been referred to this evening, such as whether the terminus should be at Maidenhead or Reading, matters affecting Shenfield, and Liverpool Street station, which I and the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) mentioned earlier. Of course, the majority of those issues we will return to only in our final report to the House. However, we did report specifically on the question of whether there should be a station at Woolwich—an issue that we first came to on days 29, 30 and 31 of our deliberations, which seems quite a long time ago. We considered whether the instructions given to us by the House would enable us to examine that issue, and in doing so we were aware that a case was being made for potential additional Government expenditure on such a provision.
	We were aware, however, that our instructions did not specifically prohibit us from looking at that issue. Indeed, during the three days when we heard the evidence for and against a station at Woolwich, we were particularly aware that at no stage did the promoters, acting on behalf of the Government, challenge the Committee's right to hear that evidence or the right of petitioners to petition us on the matter. It was thus with considerable surprise and regret that we found that the Government had—at least initially—put on one side our clear recommendation for a station at Woolwich.
	In our deliberations on that and other issues, we were very much mindful of the Government's position as promoters and that as there might be costs associated with anything we suggested for inclusion in the Bill, they would inevitably have to decide whether those costs were manageable. However, with regard to Woolwich the facts were clear. First, it was clear that what could be built at Woolwich was considerably cheaper than the original estimates. Secondly, the cost-benefit ratios for a station at Woolwich were incredibly better than those originally suggested. As the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) pointed out, the figure was 3:1 on the original costings, never mind the reduced costings, which will considerably improve that ratio. We were also aware that the cost-benefit ratio for providing a station was considerably better than some of the other elements of the original Crossrail scheme.
	I think that many of us privately feel that if something has to be sacrificed it ought not to be something with such an incredibly positive cost-benefit ratio as that station. Furthermore, it was clear from the evidence, and brought home to us when we made our visit to Woolwich, that the station's potential contribution to the regeneration of the area is enormous and will be much welcomed there. The DLR station at Woolwich will serve a very different need from a possible Crossrail station and, welcome as that is, it in no way undermines the strong case for a Crossrail station.
	Of course, £180 million—if that is the cost—is a substantial sum, but as other Members have pointed out, it needs to be seen in the context of the overall costs of the scheme. It is a lot of money, but compared with the positive cost-benefit ratio for that element of Crossrail and the comparatively poor cost-benefit ratios for other elements of the scheme, it should be afforded.
	All members of the Committee were pleased and relieved to hear that the Government intend to look further at the proposal and will enable further exploration of the costs of building a station at Woolwich. Notwithstanding the inevitable views of Members from other parts of the country, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), from whom we heard this evening, about schemes in their areas, all members of the Select Committee are of the opinion that the Crossrail scheme is enormously exciting. It is clearly vital for the future well-being of London and it is overwhelmingly clear that it can achieve its full potential only if there is a station at Woolwich.
	I am sure that I speak for all members of the Committee when I again pay tribute to the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield during our deliberations, when an excellent feeling developed between those of us incarcerated on the Committee Corridor. Like other members of the Committee, I look forward to returning to the House with our final report, which will, we hope, be in the not-too-distant future—with the Woolwich station included.

Tom Harris: I will not detain the House longer than necessary. This has been an excellent and informed debate. It has also been a very good-humoured debate, aside from the response of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) to some interventions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
	Despite some disagreements among right hon. and hon. Members on a number of issues, we should not overlook the fact that support for the Crossrail project remains strong and spans the House. That support was reflected the last time that the matter was debated on 12 January, when the motion containing instructions to the Select Committee was carried by 390 votes to nil. It is vital for a project as significant to London and the United Kingdom as Crossrail is that we maintain that consensus.
	In response to the questions of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), I can confirm that the Government intend to refer the Bill to Standing Committee as soon as the Select Committee has concluded its work. Discussions with the rail industry as regards freight continue, but I can offer no more specific details on that at the moment.
	I shall now respond briefly to the points made in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) referred to Ebbsfleet in an intervention on the Secretary of State. My understanding is that Ebbsfleet was part of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill at its introduction to the House, and was not added to the Bill by the Select Committee. My right hon. Friend is a long-time supporter of Crossrail. He is a diligent constituency Member and has led an extremely effective and persuasive campaign for a Crossrail station at Woolwich. I will not add to the comments made by the Secretary of State, who has made specific commitments regarding the Woolwich station, but I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for the campaign that he has led.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) made a very effective contribution. I take this opportunity to pay tribute, on behalf of myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to the Committee that he chairs for the work that it has done. Its members have approached a demanding but essential task with a high level of commitment and the House is grateful to them, not least for forgoing the attractions of Antigua for the charms of Woolwich.
	The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) referred at length to the Lyons report and I am happy to repeat comments about Lyons that he knows I made as guest speaker at the all-party parliamentary group on Crossrail. I reiterate that we do not expect Sir Michael to make any specific proposals regarding the funding of Crossrail. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that if his icebreaker at parties is asking people to explain why Ministers constantly refer to the Lyons review of local government finance, I would love to know what his opening chat-up line to his wife was.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is necessary for the Government to consider what might be a fairly major structural change to local government finance before they can consider the shape of any future funding package for Crossrail. That is only reasonable if at least some of the funding is to be provided through business rates. Importantly, the final funding decision can be taken only in the context of the comprehensive spending review next summer. That House will agree that to have proceeded with a funding package before Lyons would have left us open to the charge that we were doing so without a clear view of the future of local government finance.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), who is chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Crossrail, is, I am glad to say, an enthusiastic supporter of Crossrail. I am grateful for his support tonight and for his comments, which truly informed our debate.
	The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), the first member of the Select Committee to speak tonight, reiterated the support for Woolwich. He talked of the impact on local people's lives. That is important because the point of the Select Committee in the hybrid Bill process is to consider the impact on private interests, including those of individuals along the route of a project such as Crossrail and to offer remedies to mitigate the effect. The Committee has made an excellent job of that.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) made the first break in the cross-party consensus, expressing his concerns about the cost of Crossrail. I will not be drawn into arguments about the funding of Woolwich, for reasons that I have already given, but his points about public transport spending in his constituency are well made, and I am sure that they were listened to by the whole House.
	The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) mentioned his concerns about Liverpool Street station. There are two issues. The first, which is referred to in the additional provisions before us, involves the ticketing and passenger facilities. I can reassure him that the new facilities will be completely separate from existing provisions. He was also concerned about the possibility of Crossrail services using the lines that might be reserved for intercity trains. I reiterate, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, that Crossrail services, as essentially commuter services, will not use the fast lines about which the hon. Gentleman is worried, but will use the slow lines.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) devoted most of his contribution, understandably, to making the case for Woolwich. He also made a robust case for investment in Crossrail as a whole. The second member of the Select Committee to contribute tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), gave us a valuable insight into the selection process for membership of the Select Committee. I was not involved at any stage in offering the black spot to any of my colleagues in the House. My hon. Friend and his fellow members took their duties extremely seriously. I reiterate that the Government make no criticism at all of the way in which the Committee has interpreted its remit during the progress of the Bill. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) in a short contribution made a welcome argument for general investment in Crossrail and in the capital city as the engine house of the nation.
	Crossrail will benefit London, the south-east and the United Kingdom as a whole. The Government want to see Crossrail delivered, which is why we are working to drive down the cost of the project to make sure that it is affordable. The whole House will support that. That is why we want to maintain the momentum of the Bill. Let us not lose sight of the big picture. Crossrail will add an estimated £19 billion per year to the United Kingdom's gross domestic product. In the next 20 years, 30,000 new jobs will be created in the capital, in addition to the 80,000 jobs that will be attracted to the regeneration areas along the route of Crossrail.
	The motions before the House will allow the Select Committee to conclude its business and allow the Bill to proceed to the next stage. That is surely the most important thing—that an affordable, viable Crossrail scheme should proceed towards implementation. I commend the motions to the House.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That further proceedings on the Crossrail Bill shall be suspended from the day on which this Session of Parliament ends until the next Session of Parliament;
	That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Crossrail Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in this Session—
	(a) the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
	(b) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of the same Members as the members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in this Session;
	(c) the Instruction of the House to the Committee [19 July 2005] shall be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
	(d) all Petitions presented in this Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;
	(e) any Minutes of Evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in this Session shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;
	(f) only those Petitions mentioned in paragraph (d) above, and any Petition which may be presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any proposed additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the next Session, shall stand referred to the Committee;
	(g) any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee in the next Session shall, subject to the rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition;
	(h) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day Minutes of Evidence taken before it;
	(i) three shall be the Quorum of the Committee;
	(j) any person registered in this Session as a parliamentary agent entitled to practice as such in opposing Bills only who, at the time when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in this Session, was employed in opposing the Bill shall be deemed to have been registered as such a parliamentary agent in the next Session;
	(k) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in this Session or in the Session 2004-05, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;
	That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.